Marijuana.com

PotShot

Supporters hold vigil for jailed teen
Serving sentence for selling marijuana to undercover officer
MATT MCFARLAND | WNYT | April 2, 2006

Standing side by side, some held signs, others were silent in prayer.

They came together in front of the Berkshire County Superior courthouse.

All in support of Mitchell Lawrence.

"To have the support shown in this manner, it gives him a lot of courage, to keep going in a positive way." Joseph Mechare, Mitchell Lawrence’s step father.

Lawrence, an eighteen year old from Otis is currently serving the mandatory minimum two year sentence.

He was convicted of selling a little more than one gram of marijuana to an undercover police officer near a school in Great Barrington.

As Lawrence's mother and step father held his picture, organizers say the law is too strict for a first time offender.

And it’s an issue that's divided the community.

"People are either seriously for or against the district attorney, or very seriously behind the kids or believe the law isn't being applied in the way it should be," said vigil organizer John Whalan.

The prosecution of school zone violators was brought to light last summer when Kyle Sawin was the first person to stand trial following a drug sting.

He was acquitted.

While some might argue a law is a law and needs to be upheld, those in the crowd say cases should be looked at individually.

"Some district attorneys use them to gain leverage when they have arrests involving serious drugs and crimes. In this case we just believe he's applied the law in the bad way,” said Whalen.

And while they asked for justice, those in attendance say it's not a stance against the district attorney's office, but rather against the law.

“We’ve got to take a stance on crime, but you also have to use your wisdom on where you put the hammer down and where you give compassion," Mechare said.

__________________
Posting Guidelines

Carl Sagan Goodness Richard Dawkins Goodness

 

reggie_the_dog

the problem is with mandatory minimum sentences, from what I understand most judges do not like these mandatory minimus.

Oh well, when the kid gets out of jail at the age of 20 he will need years of psychological counseling for not understanding why a kid like him deserved 2 years in jail (don't forget he was a 17 year old youth when he committed the offence of selling someone a gram of cannabis), he will likely need to receive counseling for the sexual abuse he will likely be the victim of in jail, AND HE WILL LIKELY HAVE MADE LOTS OF GOOD BUSINESS CONNECTIONS TO HELP HIM MAKE QUICK MONEY EASILY SELLING POWDERS OR THE LIKE WHEN HE GETS OUT OF JAIL.

Seriously, giving someone 2 years for selling a gram of cannabis when it is their first offence is crazy, in the country I live in, dealers often get less jail time than this when caught with kilos of drugs (cocaine, heroin, cannabis etc.), for the offence of selling an gram of cannabis they would usually get a warning if it was their first offence, but alas I no longer live in the land of the free, so I am actually getting used to cops and judges that are not zealous in their persecution of drug users.

MrIMStoned

I bet the community was all for manditory sentencing when whatever politician was 'cracking down on crime'. Serves 'em right.

__________________
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Little Nicky

When there is a set sentence given for a crime then that basically ties the hands of the judge who is presiding over the case. One of his functions was to determine the correct and just punishment. With that job gone, the judgical system has now been altered. I'm sure it made a good sound bite during a political campaign but look what it is doing to the justice system.

Sec

Every 17 year old knows the repercussions of selling near a school. No sympathy from this corner.

__________________
Guidelines.
Search
http://www.marijuana.com/drug-test/index

 

FreeUpJahCure

So what he sold around a school. Did he sell to people that went to that school or little children? I dont know if he did or not but just because you sell near a school doesn't mean shit. A little more than a gram of marijuana doesn't warrant a 2 year jail sentence. Logically its just stupid!

Buzzby

Logic has nothing to do with the laws. If the laws were logical, pot would be legal and you'd get two years for selling a cigarette, a highly addictive drug that kills 450,000 Americans every year.

__________________

Little Nicky

You're right, of course, but that still doesn't make mandatory sentences just and fair.

Sec

Logical or not, fair or not, the kid knew the law and chose to break it. If this 17 year old kid had been instead a 47 year old drifter who just hopped off the boxcar would there be so much fuss? I doubt it. Residents would be glad to get the drifter away from the school.

If you don't like a law, lobby to change it. Apparently the people in Berkshire County felt it was a good law at the time it passed. If people think that penalties should be case sensitive, lobby to change that.

Just because some likable 17 year old kid broke the law and people feel sorry for him now, doesn't diminish the fact that he knew what he was doing was wrong and against the (current) law at the time he did it.

I don't know, I grew up in a different time. We were taught to take punishment and responsibility for our wrongdoings. We weren't coddled and mommy and daddy didn't come to our rescue. "Spare the rod and spoil the child". Now kids start with a "time out". God forbid you should ever spank a kid. just give 'em a good talking to, that'll do it. Take away the X-box, car keys, cell phone for a while. Oh yea, blame the homeowner if a kid gets hurt while breaking into a home.

Sorry, I went off a bit there. I just think ignorance of the law, disagreement with a law or 1 year shy of majority is absolutely NO EXCUSE to get off with a lighter sentence.

That is sort of the entire reason for this website isn't it? To gather support to lobby to change laws? Not to feel sorry for a kid who didn't have enough sense to NOT sell near a school for Pete's sake.

Mamabudz

.

Or a church (house of worship) or a day care center -- or... The list is a long one.

Did he know he was near a school?

This law was meant to stop "selling on school grounds" -- you know the big ugly drug dealer selling to the 2nd grader on the swing set

So for Pete's sake, and for this kid Mitchell, and for all the other kid's sake -- mandatory minimums are wrong.

of course you could always get invovled and VOTE to have the law changed.